Racial Stereotypes in Football Broadcasting
Andrew Wheaton
Clemson University
Abstract
Due to the emergence of live sporting events as one of American society’s favorite television programs, the study of these events is now necessary and important. While racial barriers were broken in sport many decades ago, some scholars still believe that underlying and subconscious racism is perpetrated through the institution of sport. The underlying racism is naturally present as sports tend to mirror societal norms, and this racism also manifests itself through television commentators’ word choice during live game coverage. This study applies a Critical Discourse Analysis approach to the phenomenon of stereotype reinforcement in college football broadcasts. Five different NCAA Division I football games were observed, while the word choice and statements made by the announcing teams were noted and coded. The coding process revealed three distinct dichotomies that have the potential to create subconscious differences between white and black player perception. These categories include (1) proactive versus reactive thought processes, (2) mental versus physical attributes, and (3) simplicity versus complexity. African American athletes were largely described using physical, reactive, and simple terms; while their white counterparts were described using proactive, mental, and complex terminology. A discussion of these descriptors, along with a discussion of their potential effects, is included.
Racial Stereotypes in Football Broadcasting
Introduction
For the better part of human history sports have captivated audiences and provided release, pleasure, and excitement for humans across the globe. In the United States, one of the most colorful and revered forms of organized sport has, and continues to be, collegiate football. Intermural competition in football began in the late 19th century and has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry that dominates cable television programming every Saturday between August and January each year. Because there is massive interest in the institution of college football, television deals with specific teams and conferences have grown to reach astronomical heights, leading to a media culture that is primarily focused on providing as many games through television outlets as possible.
Although college football has been around for over 100 years, the landscape and demographic makeup of the sport have drastically changed since its beginnings. Just as with every other sport in America, there was a time when African American players were not permitted to play except for in designated “black leagues”. This history is now hard to fathom, as the makeup of Division I college football players is largely African American. According to the NCAA Demographic Database, roughly 47% of Division I players are black, which, in comparison to the 39% that are white, clearly shows that overt racial discrimination is all but extinct in the realm of college football. While this fact is largely undebated, the idea that underlying racism and stereotyping are still alive is not. Sport and college football, like most every other American social institution, is an arena that garners much research about the disparate treatment of white and black participants.
One of the more specific sectors of the college football landscape is the phenomenon of sports broadcasting. Every televised football game features a commentator or team of commentators whose primary job is to provide insight and colorfully describe the events on the field. However, many studies regarding these professionals have revealed that racial stereotypes can be and are reinforced, explicitly or implicitly, due to the platform. While it may be irresponsible to call any of these individual commentators “racist” or “bigots”, their word choice may be an indicator of a societally cemented idea of racial hierarchy or generalization. The following section will outline previous research upon this topic and lead into the study conducted for this article.
Review of Literature
The media undoubtedly have a strong connection with sports in today’s society, and in a culture that is so diverse there is inevitably a racial component as well. According to Schmidt & Coe, athletics are an arena “where race and media regularly converge in important and complex ways” (2014, pg. 655). Sport has the ability to dictate and shape public perception due to its massive following, and sports commentators are at the forefront of this. The main voice that is heard from sports fans is that of the commentator, who serves as an opinion leader whether he or she intends to or not. Historically, studies have described how the platform of commentary is impactful regarding racial stereotype reinforcement. Some of these finding include the likelihood of white and black athletes to be celebrated for success, the ways in which athletes of different races are described, and the attributes that are generally applied to athletes of different races. As stated earlier, the intention of the commentator to reinforce stereotypes may not be egregious, but there is a socially learned way to talk about specific races in the athletic realm. In other words, “particular ways of understanding racial differences appear to remain firmly embedded in the everyday discourses and practices of televised sports” (Bruce, 2004, pg.861).
The overwhelming take away from previous research is that racial stereotypes are in fact reinforced by commentators of sporting events. As Schmidt & Coe determined that “non-White athletes were significantly more likely to be framed in terms of size, power, athleticism” while White athlete success was more likely attributed to mental capability and preparation (Schmidt & Coe, 2004, pg.664). Similarly, Bruce found that “under pressure and on a live stage, commentators draw upon widely circulating racial ideologies” largely because of their “location in a profoundly racialized culture” (Bruce, 2004, pg.875). These practices of inadvertent racial stereotyping are largely apparent in the realm of televised sports, which is what gives this type of additional study meaning and need. Even though sportscasters may not be doing this sort of thing knowingly or cognizantly, it can contribute to a racial atmosphere that is divergent rather than inclusive. In the words of another researcher, “Even an unconscious racial bias hurts the game as well as the players it denigrates” (Billings, 2016, 199).
Critical Discourse Analysis Applied
Because of the way that specific discourses can be created through media messages, it became evident that a Critical Discourse Analysis approach should be taken to this study. The discursive formations in this context are binary, split between those created for white athletes and those created for black athletes in collegiate football. The discursive plane in consideration are the broadcasts of five Division I college football games during the 2016 season. The broadcasts came from a variety of television outlets, which include ESPN, FOX Sports, ABC, and CBS. The following method and data gathering were done with Critical Discourse Analysis in mind, which will be apparent through the description of the discourses that emerge from data collection.
Method
Each game broadcast was viewed with specific attention paid to the word choice of the commentating team for each game. Data was recorded when commentators mentioned specific players and used descriptive terms to illustrate the role and ability of those players. These descriptions were logged and the racial makeup of the player being discussed was also included. Color-coded notecards were used to categorize discussions of white and black players and were then separated into subcategories that emerged as the most common general descriptive formations. These formations were finalized as dichotomies that will be referred to as mental/physical, simple/complex, and proactive/reactive. After careful consideration of categorization of each description, categories were analyzed based on the race of the player being described and generalizations were made regarding the use of specific language to describe each race.
Athletic/Mental Descriptors
The most common types of descriptions that were used by commentators were those that dealt with physical attributes for black players and mental capabilities for white players. Generally speaking, Aftrican American players were referred to with terms that described traits of physical prowess that were easily observable by the audience. Examples of this include animalistic references like “gazelle-like speed” and “bellcow”, which basically give the audience a visible comparison of a black player to an animal. This type of description potentially reinforces the idea that African American athletes are more closely related to animals than of humans; essentially, that they are inhuman due to their athletic excellence. On the other hand, white athletes were given attribution that dealt more with their mental ability to “read the play” or “on field awareness”. White players were referred to as “cerebral” and had the ability to “survey information on the field quickly”. These differences in descriptors may not be indicative of a general belief in the stereotypes that they apply to; however, their presence in the commentary booth is evidence that there is an underlying societal understanding of race in these specific ways.
Simple/Complex Descriptors
Just as the mental and physical descriptions of players were generally applied to specific races, descriptions of the simplicity or complexity of players’ skills and traits do the same. One example of this came when an announcer compared two quarterbacks on the same team (one white and one black), by saying that the white quarterback was “a more seasoned player of the position” and the black quarterback was “just faster than everyone else on the field”. This is an example of how commentary of football players, even in a isolated and singular example, can reinforce the stereotype that white players’ talents are more complex and black players’ talents are easily observable and simple in nature. In addition to the previous example, black players were described on multiple occasions as being “instinctual”, while white players more generally were given credit for their preparation and ability to “outsmart” their opponent. It is much simpler to say that an athlete has great instincts, and potentially requires less credit for the player than saying that he was immensely prepared and employed complex analysis and study of the game to gain an advantage. In large, the simple/complex dichotomy is one of the most interesting ones created by commentary during broadcasts because it is the least directly associated with racial stereotype and possibly the most revealing about socially taught views of specific races.
Proactive/Reactive Descriptors
Similar to the previous section, different races of athletes were generally described using words that hihglighted their proactive, preparation based skill set versus their reactive, instinct based skill set. The word instinct was specifically used numerous times to describe the way black players reacted to the play in front of them and were able to succeed due to this reaction. Conversely, white players (specifically quarterbacks), were defined in terms of their work leading up to the game more than what happened in front of them. For example, a white player was called “a gym rat” who puts in the work during the week in order to set himself up for success on Saturdays. What this does is build the stereotype that white athletes and people are more closely associated with traits that set them up for success, whereas black athletes gain success due to their almost animalistic instinct and reactions to their surroundings.
Discussion and Implications
While none of the individual dichotomies is indicative of the overall stereotype of either white or black athletes in our society, it is the combination of the three that attributes to what we generally see as white and black athletes in our collective societal mind. The black athlete is largely viewed as physical, simple minded, and reactionary, possessing great animalistic strength and instinct. Conversely, the white athlete is viewed as smart, complexly skilled, and proactive in their preparation so that their success is not left to chance. These types of stereotypes may manifest themselves in some cases, but their general application is dangerous and irresponsible. The socially learned language that commentators employ during athletic event broadcasts is not generally viewed as egregious or hurtful; however, this language could use a makeover that treats players as individuals and not as images of what their skin color says they usually are.
